Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <ronald at landheer dot com>]

On 29 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 21:04, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > > Robert Collins wrote:
> > >> I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from
> > >> Chuck for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
> > > And mine wasn't the first.
> > I aired my concern not at the thought of having a port of RPM - I know
> > there's been one around for ages - but at the thought of using it as a
> > Setup-replacement: I replied to the first paragraph written by Shankar
> > Unni in message http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-03/msg01844.html:
> Ah. Well it's been a long standing goal for dpkg or rpm support in
> setup.
That, I know - and as such, that doesn't worry me that much - as long as 
it's Setup doing the work.

> The UI wouldn't change, and both rpm and dpkg have architecture
> identifiers, so any third party packages will refuse to install with
> sensible error messages - so I don't understand the specific concern you
> have... could you clarify?
I'm not all that concerned - and I'm starting to be sorry for ever airing 
the minor doubt that traveled my mind as I wrote the original message: 
most concern is easily evaporated by adding a bit of knowledge..

RPM and dpkg both have architecture identifiers - OK, but my concern is 
exactly there: will I be able to install my Linux binaries on a Windows 
box when I need them for cross-compiling (I hope so)? and will I be able 
to install my Linux binaries on my Windows box by accident (I hope not)?

Porting RPM to Cygwin is a Good Thing in my book - I just hope that 
whenever it is done, RPM will faithfully look for i686-pc-cygwin or 
somesuch as the architecture identifier (I am not familiar with the actual 
format of those identifiers, but you get what I mean).

I also hope a "sensible error message" will be something that will make it 
very, very clear that, though it is (or should be) possible to install 
binary packages of another platform, it is impossible to run them, 
blablabla.

My worry is for the mis-informed newbie, and their complaints in fat green
print. And, of course, my worry is for the nerves of the RCM, which I can
guarantee will blow a fuse when 100 newbies come to the list to complain
that their RPM-installed Linux binaries aren't working - "OK, so I forced
an install, so what? That warning actually meant something?"

But, like I said, most concern is easily evaporated by adding a bit of 
knowledge: if you're not worried, I won't be ;)

rlc



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/